• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

FREE 20 MINUTES CONSULTATION for Technology and Media Companies – Find out more

Call us today  0131 222 2939

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

BTO Becreative

BTO's Music & Creative Industries Team

  • HOME
  • EXPERTISE
  • TEAM
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • Search
  • HOME
  • EXPERTISE
  • TEAM
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • Search

Mobile Menu

Call Us Now

Find out how our law firm can help you.

0131 222 2939

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
data wires

Counterfeit Goods and Online Sales

September 14, 2018 //  by BTO Becreative Team//  Leave a Comment

In 2014 the technology law landscape changed significantly when the High Court in England ordered some of Britain’s largest internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites purportedly selling counterfeit goods.

The case was brought by the Richemont Group (owners of the Cartier and Mont Blanc brands), who were successful in obtaining orders to prevent ISPs linking to websites which appeared to infringe registered trademarks owned by the Richemont Group.

The case was, at that time, something of a watershed in that no specific legislative provision existed to provide owners of registered trademarks with a remedy in this respect. Instead, the court relied on its powers under Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 which allows the High Court to grant an injunction “in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so”. That power, does not, of course, extend to Scotland. In Scotland, like England, there is no specific statutory power in respect of trade marks which would assist the courts. However, while the Scottish courts could not make provision in terms of the Senior Courts Act, on the face of it there is no reason why the courts could not grant interdict on the basis of the common law or by exercising the nobile officium.

Of more recent significance is the decision of the Supreme Court in June of this year which represented a notable innovation on the widely accepted rule of thumb that “expenses follow success” in court proceedings. It is generally accepted in litigation that the unsuccessful party will likely have to bear the opposing party’s judicial expenses and the costs of compliance with any court order. Only in exceptional circumstances is the general rule departed from. That said, the Supreme Court was sympathetic to the ISPs’ concerns that making an order requiring that the ISPs to bear the cost of complying with blocking orders in an age when counterfeit goods are rife, would be unduly onerous on the ISPs. At first instance, the High Court ruled that the ISPs should block content from the offending websites and that the ISPs should also bear the costs of implementing those orders. That decision was upheld on appeal by the ISPs to the Court of Appeal. However, the ISPs appealed again to the Supreme Court, this time only in relation to the matter of liability for implementation costs.

The Supreme Court held that there was no legal basis to require ISPs to meet the costs of complying with the blocking injunctions and, unlike the High Court and Court of Appeal, it did not appear to consider it appropriate to use any discretionary powers at its disposal to require the ISPs to meet those costs. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while ISPs are under an obligation to implement blocking orders, they are not obliged to meet the costs of doing so and the holders of the trade mark rights will have to meet the costs of implementation by the ISPs to give effect to the injunctions.

Many rights holders no doubt hoped that having to meet the costs of implementing blocking orders would encourage more proactive policing of content by ISPs. However, it is difficult to dispute the fact that the task (and associated costs) of regulating content where some degree of knowledge of the parties’ underlying rights is required would be significant. It therefore remains the responsibility of the rights holders to meet these costs.

This development will be of no doubt interest to Scottish rights holders and, in theory, there is no reason why litigation in this area should not be developed north of the border. A Scottish case on this point is awaited with interest.

Contact:

Lynn Richmond, Partner lyr@bto.co.uk T: 0131 222 2939

Category: Trade MarksTag: blocking orders, ISPs, trade mark rights, trademark infringement

You May Also Be Interested In:

fashion audience clapping

Are clothing designs too lacking in RAW originality and creativity to be afforded copyright protection?

The-Show-Must-Go-On-v2

“The Show Must Go On”

Sampling in the music industry – a hard Kraft to master

blog-banner

EU Copyright Directive – Is this the answer or will it leave creatives worse off?

Reputation-protection-and-social-media-fake-news

Reputation protection and social media/fake news

oil and gas

Fair Notice, Commercial Actions and not taking IP for granted

data wires

Counterfeit Goods and Online Sales

brexit-uk-flag

EU Trade Marks and Brexit

Brexit and Intellectual Property

Brexit and Intellectual Property

View our brochure below or download it here.
Previous Post: «brexit-uk-flag EU Trade Marks and Brexit
Next Post: Fair Notice, Commercial Actions and not taking IP for granted oil and gas»

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Keep Up To Date

If you would like to receive BTO BeCreative updates by email CLICK HERE (opens a new email).  See our Privacy Notice for information on how we process your data.

RECENT POSTS

fashion audience clapping

Are clothing designs too lacking in RAW originality and creativity to be afforded copyright protection?

Cofemel - Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star …

The-Show-Must-Go-On-v2

“The Show Must Go On”

Ensuring business continuity in these turbulent times is …

Sampling in the music industry – a hard Kraft to master

On 29th July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union …

blog-banner

EU Copyright Directive – Is this the answer or will it leave creatives worse off?

Our interaction with the internet is an all-time high and as …

Reputation-protection-and-social-media-fake-news

Reputation protection and social media/fake news

The American business magnate and philanthropist Warren Buffet …

Footer

Our Team

  • Paul Motion
  • Lynn Richmond
  • Jonathan Tait

Our Offices

BTO Solicitors LLP
Edinburgh: 0131 222 2939
One Edinburgh Quay
Edinburgh, EH3 9QG
Glasgow: 0141 221 8012
48 St. Vincent Street
Glasgow, G2 5HS

Our Expertise

Find out more about our legal services to the creative industries.
Learn More →

Newsletter

Sign up to receive BTO BeCreative updates by email CLICK HERE (opens a new email).   See our Privacy Notice for information on how we process your data.

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

© 2021 BTO Solicitors LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Notice · Terms & Conditions· Anti-Money Laundering Policy